Tails

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2018-04-10 08:14:37

• Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
• Deliverable for set to 299

#2 Updated by intrigeri 2018-04-10 08:15:17

• Subject changed from Backport our VeraCrypt patches to Disks in Stretch to Iteration 1: Backport our VeraCrypt patches to Disks in Stretch

#4 Updated by intrigeri 2018-04-15 13:00:11

• blocks Feature #15523: Iteration 1: Create custom Debian package for Disks added

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2018-05-07 14:06:04

• Target version changed from Tails_3.7 to Tails_3.8

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2018-05-21 14:07:31

• Assignee changed from anonym to segfault

I think you should not block on anonym for this. If you need help / uploads, ask me (or possibly u if she’s fine with that).

#8 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-03 11:47:33

• QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Info Needed

#9 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-04 19:36:46

• Target version changed from Tails_3.8 to Tails_3.9

#10 Updated by segfault 2018-06-04 20:19:52

• Description updated
• Assignee changed from segfault to intrigeri
• QA Check changed from Info Needed to Ready for QA

intrigeri wrote:
> I’ll compare the code meant for upstream and the code backported for Stretch. That is https://github.com/segfault3/gnome-disk-utility/tree/support-tcrypt vs. https://github.com/segfault3/gnome-disk-utility/tree/3.22.1-support-tcrypt, right? Once this is confirmed, please reassign to me :)

I’m glad you asked, I moved my github repositories to gitlab.com some days ago (because GNOME finished moving to gitlab too [1]) and forgot to update the links on the tickets (and also forgot to delete the github repos, which I’m doing now). So that’s https://gitlab.com/segfault3/gnome-disk-utility/tree/support-tcrypt vs https://gitlab.com/segfault3/gnome-disk-utility/tree/3.22.1-support-tcrypt now. And my commits on the 3.22.1-support-tcrypt branch should be identical to the patch applied in https://gitlab.com/segfault3/tails-packaging-gnome-disk-utility.git, but I don’t know if that has to be reviewed.

[1] It was only later that I realized that I can’t create pull requests from gitlab.com to gitlab.gnome.org, so I will have to move some repositories to gitlab.gnome.org soon. But please use the ones on gitlab.com for this review.

#11 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-05 09:04:14

• Assignee changed from intrigeri to segfault
• QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Info Needed

segfault wrote:
> So that’s https://gitlab.com/segfault3/gnome-disk-utility/tree/support-tcrypt vs https://gitlab.com/segfault3/gnome-disk-utility/tree/3.22.1-support-tcrypt now

404

#12 Updated by segfault 2018-06-05 14:07:09

• Assignee changed from segfault to intrigeri
• QA Check changed from Info Needed to Ready for QA

intrigeri wrote:
> segfault wrote:
> > So that’s https://gitlab.com/segfault3/gnome-disk-utility/tree/support-tcrypt vs https://gitlab.com/segfault3/gnome-disk-utility/tree/3.22.1-support-tcrypt now
>
> 404

Argh. Fixed the project visibility now. I wish gitlab had a setting to change the default project visibility to public :/

#13 Updated by intrigeri 2018-06-05 15:25:05

• Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
• Assignee deleted (intrigeri)
• Target version changed from Tails_3.9 to Tails_3.8
• % Done changed from 0 to 100
• QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

Looks perfect to me!